On 8/17/10 5:37 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 17 August 2010 05:21, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm forwarding this old message to the Standards list for further >> discussion. Expect follow-ups soon. >> >> /psa >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [TechReview] Review of XEP-0234, 0260 and 0261. >> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:53:14 +0200 >> From: Steffen Larsen <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: XSF Technical Review Team <[email protected]> >> To: XSF Technical Review Team <[email protected]> >> CC: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]> >> >> Hi All, >> >> Me, Joe and Ali have spend some time last week to review the XEPs >> described in the subject. >> >> Here is our summary of XEP-0234 (which I also mailed earlier to the tech >> list): >> >> Hash transfer in section 3. has a poor wording: "At any time, the >> hosting entity can communicate the hash of the file to the receiving >> entity". >> We believe that it should be changed to "At any time (during the session >> life-time or before the session terminates)". >> That will make it more unambiguous that it can only be done in the right >> state (that is in a session that is not terminated yet). >> >> The <file> tag has a size attribute, but the unit is not explained >> anywhere. Its only in XEP-0096 chapter 3 it is explained that the unit >> is bytes. It is the same with the hash attribute. In XEP-0234, it is not >> visible that it is the MD5 checksum that is used as algorithm. >> >> In XEP-0234 it does not look like that we can do resumable downloads of >> files. In XEP-0096 it looks like that there is defined an optional >> <range> element. If ranged queries are to be implemented, we could do >> that as a transport options/transport features (XEP-0260/0261). But it >> seems like that this feature is left out at present time. >> > > Just a quick note that if we add ranges, we should make sending the > hash with the session-initiate a SHOULD. Otherwise the receiving > client has no way to judge whether it is the same file except by the > filename and size. > > Also I've had bad experience (as a user) with transfer resumption thus > far... I think some clients just ignore the range, and send from 0, > causing the range-supporting recipient to receive the start of the > file twice. So either we make range support mandatory, or we need some > way for the initiator to announce it.
If anything, I'd prefer to remove ranges from XEP-0096. Do any clients support them? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
